Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), the description discloses asynchronous behavior: it returns a thread_id, status, next_action, poll_after_seconds, and next_step, and instructs the agent to poll get_request_status. This adds meaningful operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, cardinality constraint, text limit, and return behavior are each stated in a few sentences with no filler. The use of backticks for parameter names and a clear next-step instruction keeps it scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a submission tool with a provided output schema, the description covers the key usage loop, polling behavior, and limits, making it actionable. The main gap is the unexplained workflow_profile parameter, which keeps it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for the text parameter by defining its format, scope, and length limit, but it does not explain project_id or workflow_profile. The required project_id is only self-evident from its name, and workflow_profile is left undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Ask for a change') and the resource/domain (feature, bug fix, new direction) with clear intent. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling refine_request or answer_request, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides concrete usage constraints: one feature/intent per call, splitting multi-feature asks, a 16000-character text limit, and explicit follow-up steps via get_request_status. It lacks explicit 'do not use when...' exclusions, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.